Recent Posts

Reyth, I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding the logic of this system.I watched various of the videos, and read the scripts, but cannot understand why you play overlapping six-lines, which you call DS.I realize that you don't play B&M, but I cannot understand how this could possibly work.Are you covering the whole table (bar zero)?And you infer that covering fewer numbers results in higher losses, I played at a B&M yesterday for about an hour anf a half, four chips straight up on three cons. numbers (wheel sequence, not felt)113 results, total outlay 452, return 756, profit 304 units, real currency units.I started with 50 currency units, and, if that fell, I called the session closed.Playing EC's and six-lines and dozens is outside my terms of reference.

So you have concluded that because you lost he must have lost too and that maybe he fabricated his winning to increase traffic to his system. We have to explore all avenues. Have you made contact with him on twitter or email and asked him to explain your loss?

I'd still like to find out why he wins with something that others fail at.

MuckyP, wanna differ, do it, no need to beg for it. On my personal opinion he has no any remote idea of what he is tolking about, yet l found a statement that made sense for me. I even highlighted it , what else l can do? I really do not belive that there are many system/ strategy players out there. And his opinions about game in general do not represent them either. I know few that are suxsesful. These are strategy/ system players. Roulette is not that difficult game, you know. Just needs a little patience to determine what exactly gonna work on the wheel you play.

If a player thinks ,he can predict the outcome of the next spin, he falls is the mouse trap of GF. The AP player thinks he can predict the outcome of the next spin. On this forum I have not met an AP player with a plan. AP players also walk against a long streak no hits. No one explains his method to overwin a negative streak.A gambler struggles always with the GF.A roulette player with a system and a strategy knows , he can not predict the next spin. A player plays sessions and expect a win within a number of spins. His expectation is based on his knowledge of the features of random sequences. The equilibrium feature is one important feature. He uses also the probability of events not the spin. He knows that the result of a fixed event in the short run can be positive or negative. The successful player leaves a session after a positive balance. Hit and run. The roulette must spin and the player may bet.I use more than one method for different chances.

Stas, I'm not endorsing his system as a winning system, please understand that.

Should we presume his winnings are not a true reflection of his game play he has presented us with? I think not. I don't doubt his winnings and he does explain step by step how to use his system. His winnings are a result of a predetermined win goal that he sticks to religiously. If his target is set to reach 980 units from a starting balance of 935 units; as soon as he breaches the 980 mark he ends the session. He may end at 987 units, a mere 13 units from 1000 units but he stops. Many players will chase those last 13 units to reach that psychological 1000 mark.

The reason why I commented on this old post is because it gives us an opportunity to study his approach as a whole and instead of branding it a failure, we should try and understand the success of this approach. I choose to believe his winnings are true and I have studied the evolution of his game play. The fact that he is able to manage a "loosing system" and turn it around into a winning one should inspire us to study his methods, don't you think? Nothing ventured nothing gained.

I AM agreeing with you, are my posts so unclear that you can't see it?

You're basically saying that we can't assume that roulette outcomes are always random and that therefore triggers won't work. That's what I'm saying too. And we can't accuse someone of committing GF unless they explicitly say that outcomes ARE random. This is also in agreement with what Mr P says.